Preamble to Charter of Rights....

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Dirty thoughts about nuns when I was a teenager.

I was hoping Hell would be like the South Park version.

 

Satan's sweet 16 party??

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Dirty thoughts about nuns when I was a teenager.

Ewwww.

 

Quote

I was hoping Hell would be like the South Park version.

Personally I can't think of anything more Hellish than Pat Robertson's description of Heaven.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Satan's sweet 16 party??

Was that the one where no-one was allowed to go as the Crow?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Ewwww.

Well sure, some of them.

But the others...

To this day, I still get hot and flustered when I see a police car.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Was that the one where no-one was allowed to go as the Crow?

 

Satan ordered a Ferrari cake for the party but ended-up getting an Plymouth Acura...not pleased.

A Three Stooges theme if I recall...

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Satan ordered a Ferrari cake for the party but ended-up getting an Plymouth Acura...not pleased.

A Three Stooges theme if I recall...

South Park is still one of only a very small handful of shows that has actually incapacitated me with laughter.

Just remember to breathe...

[Queenmandy85]

Well, Scott, I guess there is your answer. 

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well, we're nuts to leave that safeguard up to the fear of God - especially now that the Pope just negotiated a Deferred Purgatory Agreement with Him/Her/It/Them/Q?2 for even the worst amongst us.

Well Pope Francis has lots of enemies.  It’s actually a lot of zealous young priests who think he has strayed.  I think he’s given his best shot at reforming the Vatican.  I think he’s basically a decent guy who is trying to make the Church relevant.  He tried to help the poor in South America years ago. He has a scientific background.  Look, some of what we would have called evil in the past we would now call mentally unstable.  He knows that.

I knew an Irish priest who used to say, Don’t worry about hell.  All your friends will be there!

[Queenmandy85]

Deleted

Edited January 1, 2020 by Queenmandy85

[Scott Mayers]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

...as I pointed out before politicians who subscribe to the Being referenced in the Constitution's preamble and who utter the magic words will feel right at home knowing everything they say and do is being judged.

Unless the politician is not actually religious but pretending to be......something sincere religious people should take note on: if we are all expected to respect  religious  power by that preamble, you may end up just getting what you ask for by having atheists toss their hands up in the air and start playing along. Maybe its already happing?!  

Considering the atheist  is most 'evil' by the religious, what worse of a character would you expect than to have them successfully infiltrate and run the religious organs? [...something I already suspect the religious are doing in some of our own community.] 

I challenge the religious to then counter THIS argument. That is, that preamble is as much a real threat to your own freedoms!

[Scott Mayers]

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think that the spirit of the preamble’s reference to “God” is to warn all who seek power and authority that no person or group has ultimate authority over people.  The state’s authority is limited.  What’s more, if there is a higher, perfect, all knowing authority beyond humanity, it would serve people well to be careful not to knowingly act in such a way that would be inhumane or damaging to the society.  It’s a safeguard. 

 

To repeat what I just posted last, this preamble if not removed WILL be worse for even the religious because given the atheist lacks the threat of some super authority above them, what better 'evil' would it be to have atheists faking that they are religous and simply infiltrating your religious authorities? 

[Scott Mayers]

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

On China, you’re way off base.  China still arrests and detains individuals without anything like the due process Canadians would expect.  A Canadian government wouldn’t dare micromanage family planning as China has done, in clear violation of human rights, nor would Canada imprison members of a religious group because of ideological disagreement as has been done with Uighurs.  The state in China is far too powerful.  It is totalitarian.  Where you are coming up with some bizarre idea that my defence of maintaining mention of God in the preamble of our constitution has anything to do with “right-wing anarchism” is beyond me.  I really do worry about where we’re headed when I hear such a confused indictment of ideas that many Canadians value.  This is Canada, not the People’s Republican of China.

I think that things like population controls are an essential environmental necessity and that the power granted to individuals to add more people in the world itself is both a human rights crime. As to detaining religious groups, the nature of success of such groups to merely exist in such a country should tell you the degree of strength of those religions as above normal. In the threat of intolerance by the religous, such as how you think we need to be forced this upon us here, is also potentially hazardous for the particular kind of religion. Note that Socialist countries actually have MORE 'democratic powers than ours! The problem with that is how there is a tendency to favor lower common denominators on certain issues. It is arrogant of Canada (and the West) to simply presume their actions are bad without sufficient inspection,....something we are lacking.

But see my last note. If you expect your leaders to be religious, then you will end up having the deceptive athiests maximize their 'evil' when at the top and who FAVOR the utility of religion just as you do, not the opposite.

[Scott Mayers]

18 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Well, Scott, I guess there is your answer. 

I missed something I think. What was this a reference to? (here or somewhere else?)

[Queenmandy85]

Just now, Scott Mayers said:

I missed something I think. What was this a reference to? (here or somewhere else?)

Your issue degenerated into discussion of sexy nuns etc. I think people lost interest. Nice discussion though, up to that point.

[Scott Mayers]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Your issue degenerated into discussion of sexy nuns etc. I think people lost interest. Nice discussion though, up to that point.

Oh yes, I see that a lot on threads. But see my above couple of responses (on topic) that I think you might consider more appealing to my logic here. And then does not the risk of what I suggested not present a good justification of appeal against the preamble that even devoutly religious people might back up as well?

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Oh yes, I see that a lot on threads. But see my above couple of responses (on topic) that I think you might consider more appealing to my logic here. And then does not the risk of what I suggested not present a good justification of appeal against the preamble that even devoutly religious people might back up as well?

I would be fine having an atheist or member of a different faith from my own as PM if his/her policies are good for the country and if he/she is a principled person.  What I’ll never accept is giving a person absolute authority over people.  That’s where notions like the human spirit come in, the idea that one may have physical/temporal authority over people, but there is something greater in a person that can’t be owned, bought or controlled by the state.  Many people of faith and many people who may not be sure what they believe or if they believe in God still believe in this idea that the individual has some kind of deeper essence.  My argument to an atheist who thinks that the spiritual should be removed from the constitution is that you may not like a state that sees people as nothing more than physical subjects, because it’s easier to manipulate and control that which can be measured and observed.  Anyway there is plenty of historical proof to show what forms of oppression are possible by governments that think they can have total control of their subjects through social engineering.  

Edited January 1, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Anyway there is plenty of historical proof to show what forms of oppression are possible by governments that think they can have total control of their subjects through social engineering.  

What should shine above all else is that there is not a single moment in history when human beings have had total control over their governments. Technology is probably the only thing that could attain that but I can certainly also allow that new forms of dystopia could develop - the rise of atheism certainly hasn't been a guarantee against other just as potent delusions from retarding the ability to reason, especially collecvtively.

[Zeitgeist]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What should shine above all else is that there is not a single moment in history when human beings have had total control over their governments. Technology is probably the only thing that could attain that but I can certainly also allow that new forms of dystopia could develop - the rise of atheism certainly hasn't been a guarantee against other just as potent delusions from retarding the ability to reason, especially collecvtively.

Very true.  I can see a lot of decision making being turned over to artificial intelligence, especially once we have our bodies and communities wired to the hilt collecting data on everything from our spending habits to our driving patterns and all of our medical and productivity outcomes.  Bill Gates warns about this.  Google is heavily involved with developing a new waterfront community in Toronto that will collect a ton of data.  They’re providing all sorts of security assurances.  I do worry that at some point we could fall asleep at the wheel.  Ultimately ethics should determine the direction of societal activity, I think.  If we stop asking, “Why?”, then I think we just become a self-perpetuating consumerism factory.  I know a certain amount of that is inevitable and part of our animal nature, yet humans can reflect and choose better ways to live than to merely consume.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[Marocc]

On 12/27/2019 at 9:31 AM, Scott Mayers said:

I believe this needs to be addressed precisely because of this. If it simply formalizes how a people's government is operated, then anything goes on this condition. It undoes anything that follows outside of a fraudulent means to manipulate the 'common' citizen into thinking we have democratic freedoms. 

It doesn't have much to do directly with the operation of the government. It is an expression that, not only acknowledges the existence of God, but also acknowledges that the nation, the government, the population and each individual depends on Him. This should do you no harm, except for the expression possibly attacking your pride. There is no need to make that a problem of the whole nation though.

On 12/27/2019 at 10:22 AM, Nefarious Banana said:

Do you expect a coherent response from Trudeau?

I'm sure Trudeau doesn't expect to receive questions one is supposed to ask from professors in universities.

On 12/27/2019 at 2:23 PM, Scott Mayers said:

permits those in power of authority to justify any dictated action as justified in the name of some 'god'.

So long as they keep saying it's 'for the common good'. Turth is the word doesn't matter. What matters is doing right.

On 12/27/2019 at 5:19 PM, Cannucklehead said:

Ok let's remove thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal from our charter.  

Could be fun.  

Let's remove fear of karma from the people. Even more fun. Then the church can take over again.

On 12/27/2019 at 11:11 PM, Scott Mayers said:

How do you infer that killing and stealing were not normal agreements of conduct

It doesn't matter if they were or were not. The point is much of the religious law is good and natural for people. For some reason you are insulted by the insinuation that it wasn't the pure wisdom of man that created them out of nothing?

On 12/27/2019 at 10:57 PM, Scott Mayers said:

it is just this kind of pretentiousness of triviality that later creates wars.

Between who?

On 12/27/2019 at 10:57 PM, Scott Mayers said:

conditions all to accept the religious authority,

No, it doesn't.

On 12/27/2019 at 10:48 PM, Scott Mayers said:

We lack the American's First Amendment which assures the system is secular. 

Would words assure it stays that way? You demand too much. What can you give?

[Scott Mayers]

7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I would be fine having an atheist or member of a different faith from my own as PM if his/her policies are good for the country and if he/she is a principled person.  What I’ll never accept is giving a person absolute authority over people.  That’s where notions like the human spirit come in, the idea that one may have physical/temporal authority over people, but there is something greater in a person that can’t be owned, bought or controlled by the state.  Many people of faith and many people who may not be sure what they believe or if they believe in God still believe in this idea that the individual has some kind of deeper essence.  My argument to an atheist who thinks that the spiritual should be removed from the constitution is that you may not like a state that sees people as nothing more than physical subjects, because it’s easier to manipulate and control that which can be measured and observed.  Anyway there is plenty of historical proof to show what forms of oppression are possible by governments that think they can have total control of their subjects through social engineering.  

Agree to your intent. Bur if 'spirit' is REQUIRED to be in people regardless, asserting any statements about  the constitution formalizing this should be superfluous to the religious and thus unnecessary. But yet people of such 'spirit' have DEMANDED this preamble which contradicts their faith UNLESS something is deceptively involved. And given our Constitution conserves  SPECIAL subsets of the people based upon religious (or 'spiritual') justification, that proves why that preamble is there not trivially about some 'spirit' within people's nature. If Nature is 'god', then it doesn't require people to defend its 'spirit' as though believing in the concept of belief is most significant. That begs of totalitarianism because it is saying 'blindly trust those who assert virtue in the unseen'. Governments are secular institutes of management that belong to ALL people, not a TOOL for manipulation. Supporting that preamble is actually a vote for the very logic that leads to totalitarianism.

And I point to the oldest 'civilizations' in our world as proof of this. The nature of KEEPING some condition of polticians to be 'spiritual' counters the idea that the management system belongs to all people.

My point of the last few arguments is that IF YOU ARE correct about premitting culture/religious laws discriminating specific people on the grounds of religious rights, even those who seem to trust their leaders for acting what appears IN THEIR FAVOR of 'spiritual' supremacy, this faith is unwarranted when the nature of those without it who ARE presumed 'evil' would be drawn into positions that delude you with better accuracy and will. The peamble is part of the con legally devised to permit the right of government to create and enforce laws contrary to the interests OF the people precisely because such leaders lack the SAME "FAITH' in the masses that you think we should have in them uniquely. They want such cultural laws to impose arbitrary ruling where needed. THAT is NOT a system I have faith in AND actually have more justification to have a counter-faith in. 

Removing the preamble, if it is merely trivial about something 'spiritual', isn't necessary and so shouldn't threaten the religious. Yet why was it so deemed essential? Why resist removing it?

[Scott Mayers]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Anyway there is plenty of historical proof to show what forms of oppression are possible by governments that think they can have total control of their subjects through social engineering.  

What should shine above all else is that there is not a single moment in history when human beings have had total control over their governments. Technology is probably the only thing that could attain that but I can certainly also allow that new forms of dystopia could develop - the rise of atheism certainly hasn't been a guarantee against other just as potent delusions from retarding the ability to reason, especially collecvtively.

Your responses are confusing me to where you stand with my own proposal to remove the preamble. Are you for its presense? Your first sentence in response to Zeitgeist appears to be supporting the idea that there is some being running the government beyond the people's power. I already recognize nature itself as defaulted to be more powerful but it too doesn't require officially asserting. What would nature do BEYOND people's involvement (including technology we create) matter? 

[Scott Mayers]

52 minutes ago, Marocc said:

On 12/27/2019 at 1:31 AM, Scott Mayers said:

I believe this needs to be addressed precisely because of this. If it simply formalizes how a people's government is operated, then anything goes on this condition. It undoes anything that follows outside of a fraudulent means to manipulate the 'common' citizen into thinking we have democratic freedoms. 

It doesn't have much to do directly with the operation of the government. It is an expression that, not only acknowledges the existence of God, but also acknowledges that the nation, the government, the population and each individual depends on Him. This should do you no harm, except for the expression possibly attacking your pride. There is no need to make that a problem of the whole nation though.

If is doesn't have anything 'directly' significant to the operation of government, then why are these conditional statemenst essential? It just preassures that whatever follows the preamble is conditioned to something beyond our power to affect. Then if such power of governments are submissive to such invisible authority, why is it necessary at all to HAVE a 'Constitution' beyond the faith you presume is necessary. That preamble is intentionally designed to set up more conditions that FAVOR specific religious people's beliefs and DISFAVORS those outside of that group's control.

Thus, for instance, the Catholic Church is one of the Constitutionally designated PEOPLE as conserved and protected uniquely. This transfers the power TO that religious organization in a way that has no direct accountability to the people of Canada. Their loyalty is not about all people in Canada and so turns this 'government' into a  FORCED INTSTITUTE of management contrary to any appearance of 'democracy' or acceptance of 'divesity' it is being sold as.

This means that the Catholic Church, in essence, acts as a secret power of veto in line with the Queen, for example. [I don't assume royalty either as essential for the same reasoning.]

Edited January 2, 2020 by Scott Mayers

[Zeitgeist]

20 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Agree to your intent. Bur if 'spirit' is REQUIRED to be in people regardless, asserting any statements about  the constitution formalizing this should be superfluous to the religious and thus unnecessary. But yet people of such 'spirit' have DEMANDED this preamble which contradicts their faith UNLESS something is deceptively involved. And given our Constitution conserves  SPECIAL subsets of the people based upon religious (or 'spiritual') justification, that proves why that preamble is there not trivially about some 'spirit' within people's nature. If Nature is 'god', then it doesn't require people to defend its 'spirit' as though believing in the concept of belief is most significant. That begs of totalitarianism because it is saying 'blindly trust those who assert virtue in the unseen'. Governments are secular institutes of management that belong to ALL people, not a TOOL for manipulation. Supporting that preamble is actually a vote for the very logic that leads to totalitarianism.

And I point to the oldest 'civilizations' in our world as proof of this. The nature of KEEPING some condition of polticians to be 'spiritual' counters the idea that the management system belongs to all people.

My point of the last few arguments is that IF YOU ARE correct about premitting culture/religious laws discriminating specific people on the grounds of religious rights, even those who seem to trust their leaders for acting what appears IN THEIR FAVOR of 'spiritual' supremacy, this faith is unwarranted when the nature of those without it who ARE presumed 'evil' would be drawn into positions that delude you with better accuracy and will. The peamble is part of the con legally devised to permit the right of government to create and enforce laws contrary to the interests OF the people precisely because such leaders lack the SAME "FAITH' in the masses that you think we should have in them uniquely. They want such cultural laws to impose arbitrary ruling where needed. THAT is NOT a system I have faith in AND actually have more justification to have a counter-faith in. 

Removing the preamble, if it is merely trivial about something 'spiritual', isn't necessary and so shouldn't threaten the religious. Yet why was it so deemed essential? Why resist removing it?

There should never be blind trust in government.  That’s the point.  Government cannot assert some special higher authority because it doesn’t have it.  The existing preamble is basically saying that government isn’t at the top of the order of things.  It is derivative and entrusted with power by the people who transcend the government.  It asserts a higher authority than government.  Now, what is that higher essence?  Luther might have called it inner light.  Kant might have called it Reason.  Hegel might call it Spirit.  A non-religious way to describe it might be the Ideal, which stands for the perfection we have not achieved.  That could be God for a religious person, or for an atheist-humanist, a world without suffering.  The point is that we’re not there yet, and ultimately even the best governors are fallible people whose power should be limited because people are limited.  

[Yzermandius19]

All this hand wringing about god being mentioned in the preamble is pretty funny. A lot of silly extrapolations about this being the source of any dysfunction in Canadian governance as well. A shout out to god is not the problem with the Constitution, Confederation is the problem. Atheists always blaming religion for all the world's problem is very typical though, haters gonna hate.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Scott Mayers]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

There should never be blind trust in government.  That’s the point.  Government cannot assert some special higher authority because it doesn’t have it.  The existing preamble is basically saying that government isn’t at the top of the order of things.  It is derivative and entrusted with power by the people who transcend the government.  It asserts a higher authority than government.  Now, what is that higher essence?  Luther might have called it inner light.  Kant might have called it Reason.  Hegel might call it Spirit.  A non-religious way to describe it might be the Ideal, which stands for the perfection we have not achieved.  That could be God for a religious person, or for an atheist-humanist, a world without suffering.  The point is that we’re not there yet, and ultimately even the best governors are fallible people whose power should be limited because people are limited.  

"There should never be blind trust in government. That's the point. Government cannot assert some special higher authority because it doesn't have it."

As long as there is that preamble, the government DOES have power of authority REGARDLESS of trust. To say that it cannot assert some special higher power,  why does our Constitution NOT say that specifically to assure this AND still protect specific select religious beliefs? The Catholic Church, the Queen (Anglicans), and the distinct religious declaration of Natives being presumed as distinct entities based upon their mere genetic composition? These are examples contradictory to your statement IN FACT. We are expected to have FAITH in these select  groups (and those other outside groups they authorize in privilege of their power).